You guys are always saying that being religious is "following the masses and respecting the thoughts of a superior".
How is science any difference of this?
I have studied many subjects in my life, including astronomy. And it surprises me that only USA has the golden word around how the Earth is and works. Including many subjects around Cosmology.
And there goes my question again. Why should I believe them?
I'm skeptical and this is how everyone interested in science should be.
Is there any person in this board that works freelance in cosmology/astrology subjects? Or should I always eat the NASA papers without questioning anything?
>Tfw the major assumptions in your field of study are that the ground is flat and the sky is a glowing globe with a bright 2D circle moving around
Ironically the satellites we use are proof themselves that flat earth is bullshit
Terrestrial remote sensing is weird as fuck
Jeremiah Ramirez
You are right. However, to be fair, believing in the most established scientific phenomenons requires slightly less imagination than some flying bearded bodybuilder God. The former are logically plausible, the latter is not.
Christian Rivera
OP here. I'm not a flat earth guy. I just happened to come across a few articles, and people start pointing them like sheep, laughing and denying everything they say.
I don't know, it seems very controversial. They are gaining territory because NASA can't explain many of the stuff.
>who is Copernicus >who is Kepler >who is Newton Don't subject subject others to your willful ignorance Citizen.
Dylan Young
Are you a scientist?
Jackson Hall
I'm afraid most of the people here won't be able to come to terms that most of maths is complete garbage 1=999...? Infinite rope in an infinite space? Set Theory? String Theory??!?
Most science papers, about 99%, can't even be reproduced and today are written so archaically as to be illegible.
Science, and to a large degree, maths, has failed, really God is the main mover and "Scientists" (Government Whores) Will have to find a real job soon when they the wells dry up.
Isaac Wilson
Math is just a language, and it is used in science a lot.
>God is the main mover It not an answer. We don't know what the main mover is, but we give it a label, so we can communicate about that topic. That label is 'God'. Of what does God consists? If we knew, we would called something then God.
'God' is merely another word for '?'
Zachary Harris
>If we knew, we would called something then God. ...we would call it something ELSE then God
David Perez
Anyone can come up with new discoveries and theories to challenge mainstream scientific thought.
Religion cannot be challenged and religious leaders will probably kill if you if you dare.
There is a difference between true science/empiricism, where you yourself only believe what you have empirical evidence for, and the culture of "science" where you believe whatever is written on wikipedia, or whatever some paper or textbook says. It's good that you are questioning these things, but don't be skeptical to the point of disbelieving things you have solid evidence for.
Carter Rivera
I'm pretty sure that is a troll
Nathan Anderson
yes, in theory. But there is such a thing as fashion, both in science and in maths.
and the kind of problems that are being worked on often require expensive equipment and therefore large amounts of funding, so it's not like any random unemployed schmuck can just go out and make new theories willy nilly.
Im not a poltard saying climate change is a jewish conspiracy, but there are clearly fads and trends in science which you often just have to accept to a degree
Zachary Stewart
You're this fag who do all those shit flat earth theory, right ?
Juan Wilson
Read the thread. I'm not.
Watch this It kinda explains my point, in a funny way.
Mason Young
Science respects no authority. Scientific progress is not made by learning rote dogma. It is made by attacking new ideas and finding out which ones hold up to scrutiny.
If you aren't willing to put in the effort to test theories yourself, that is not a shortcoming of the scientific method.
"I believe" and "I don't believe" are not valid scientific observations. "The evidence supports" and "the evidence does not support" are.
Different interpretations are not a problem so long you are willing to change your interpretation when presented with new evidence.
Cameron Price
>You guys are always saying that being religious is "following the masses and respecting the thoughts of a superior".
Not sure anybody has ever said that. Not even sure what you meant when YOU said it.
Levi Johnson
>Not even sure what you meant when YOU said it. That's just disengenuous, you know exactly what he meant.
Robert Russell
>They are gaining territory because NASA can't explain many of the stuff. The first part may be true, it is hard to tell in a world of trolls trolling trolls.
The second part is a lie -- just because you cannot understand it does not mean they cannot, or have not, explained it. They can explain it t you, they cannot understand it for you.
Grayson James
>You guys are always saying that being religious is "following the masses and respecting the thoughts of a superior".
No we don't you fucking redditer.
Evan Nguyen
Religious ideas are challenged all the time.
Austin Smith
No, I really don't. But maybe you are better than interpreting fractured mulish than I am.
Brody Clark
>mulish
Well fuck.. .
I don't know how I typed "mulish" for "English," but I guess that'll teach me to proofread before hitting "Post."
Easton Evans
Blame positivists. Somehow they managed to make religion and science bitter enemies.
Charles Edwards
Yea nah you're a fag. OP's probably ESL or just retarded but if you can't decipher meaning from that ramble then you're dumber than he is.
Dylan Mitchell
holy fuck people are actually replying to this bait thread that is hilarious.
